Forum:Stunts
__NOEDITSECTION__ During the past bunch of weeks, editors have been identifying stunt performers all over the place (see Talk:24: On the Loose for just a recent taste). This will spur changes in several parts of the wiki, such as the Performers with multiple roles page. However one thing specifically I'd like the community to settle early is the change that will happen to the Dramatis personae list. It's clear that "Uncredited" is no longer sufficient as a place to throw stunt actors, because although many were indeed uncredited, many others are credited (in the stunts portion of their episode creds). I'd like to propose the following to be the renamed subheading for all these performers, as a catchall to replace "Uncredited": Uncredited, extras, & stunts Thoughts? changes? 08:53, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :That makes sense. How about the ordering of it? Are we still keeping a blanket alphabetical list (mixing up Ryan Chappelle with Kingsley's thug #7) or could we maybe group them differently? :I wanna quickly bring up the pages of the stunt guys themselves - are we adding "stunt performers" to each page? If so, is also adding the categ "uncredited actors" a little bit redundant, seeing as the vast majority were uncredited? Again it's hard to draw the line here.--Acer4666 09:58, April 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Normally the stunt performers are indeed uncredited. Maybe we should (or could) consider another possibility having two sections on the episodes pages like "Uncredited" for every actor and extra who received no credit and "Stunt Performers" for all stunt actors and stunt doubles in this episode. Just a thought. Tom 13:09, April 4, 2011 (UTC) ::: But, sometimes there are stunts credits at the end of the episode right? It comes up a few cards after the co-star list if I remember correctly. If I'm right, this means some are credited (but not all). If we used your idea Tom how would we know who was a stunt person and who was an extra? It means we can't put all stunt people in 1 list. There should be a separate list for credited stunts, and then this list here of uncredited persons. I'll change it to the following: ::: Uncredited extras & stunts 18:57, April 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm fairly sure only stunt co-ordinators are credited there - though I haven't checked all the episodes. Sometimes the co-ordinators do the stunts, but they're still technically uncredited as they are only credited for co-ordination.--Acer4666 19:01, April 4, 2011 (UTC) "Uncredited extras & stunts" doesn't account for people like Harris Yulin who wasn't either. I suggest we go with the heading "Extras, stunts & uncredited performers". They're in reverse order of significance, but I think it flows better than "Uncredited performers, stunts & extras". --proudhug 19:40, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :Is there a way to draw a line between uncredited extras and stunt performers? I'd be in favour of splitting that as Tom suggests, but the trouble is how to place people. Though if we go through with the stunt performers category, everyone actor in that categ would go in "stunt performers" and all other actors go in "uncredited performers" (Or uncredited performers and extras" if wanted)--Acer4666 19:58, April 4, 2011 (UTC) What's the need to separate them? I see it as being a potential problem since, as far as a show-viewing standpoint goes, it's impossible to tell the difference between an extra and a stunt performer with no lines. In reality, the only difference is the union they belong to, so unless we've got access to the complete list of union members, there may be instances where we have no way of distinguishing between the two. --proudhug 20:14, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :I think that the lists will look quite messy, especially if they stay organised alphabetically - we're gonna have a mix of characters like Roger Stanton, next to unnamed CTU staffers and "guy blown up #3", along with "Jack Bauer (stunt double)" etc. But it's not a major thing. However, if the "stunt performers" category is going ahead, we're going to have to separate them anyway, so I was suggesting following that through to the cast lists. Are you against that category too?--Acer4666 20:42, April 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I also think that we should split because traditionally on film credits the stunt teams have bridged the gap between cast and crew. Think about stunt drivers - really they're crew, equivalent to special effects guys, making the cars move - but if we happen to be able to make out one of their silhouettes, they'll be moved from uncredited crew to uncredited cast. I think having a stunt section, after cast and before crew, will be a similar bridging thing.--Acer4666 21:14, April 4, 2011 (UTC) : Obviously I'm not against the stunt category since I was the one who proposed the idea. :P : I do see what you're saying about the list possibly looking ugly, though. What if they were arranged by uncredited-with-lines, stunts, and then uncredited-without-lines, and alphabetical within each sub-category? I doubt sub-headings will be necessary, but this might be an idea. I don't know if that would be too confusing for people, though. I'm probably okay with any decision; I mainly just wanted to chime in about Blue Rook's proposed heading title. --proudhug 01:37, April 5, 2011 (UTC) There is no problem to separate the stunt performers from the background actors (or extras). Stunt performers have definitly more physical action than the actors. No problem to say who is a stunt performer and who is a background actor. For stunt drivers this is also no problem. Stunt drivers are seen on screen as they're driving the cars so they do also belong into the stunt category as they're performing a stunt. They are not part of the crew because they're hired to work in front of the camera. They're also different and not compared to the special effects crew who are working behind the camera. We don't need a list of "union members" because we can say without having problems who worked as stuntman in front of the camera and had physical action. Mentioning the union or the Screen Actors Guild it is not allowed for background actors/extras/atmosphere performers to do stunts in front of the camera. The only stunt people who are not working in front of the camera are the stunt coordinator (and maybe an assistant), stunt rigger/stunt technicians, and stunt people who are responsible for the safety, Katie Rowe for example who made sure Dennis Haysbert was safe performing more physical moves than in other episodes. What about a heading title like this Uncredited Co-Stars * People who were mainly featured in other episodes or did this job without a credit to lower the costs. Atmosphere *''Extras and background performers like "Man in crowd #3" or "CTU Agent #6".'' Stunt performers *''All stunt actors and stunt doubles, stunt drivers, riggers, etc.'' So far I know and it would be quite unique for a television show, only the stunt coordinator receives credit at the end of an episode. Tom 04:09, April 5, 2011 (UTC) : "Physical action" sounds like an extremely subjective term to me, though. If we came across a stuntman who appeared on-screen in an episode but didn't actually perform any stunts that episode, didn't have any lines, and wasn't credited, would we just list him as an extra for that episode? --proudhug 04:32, April 5, 2011 (UTC) :: Proudhug's right. Say there is a guy who just stands there in one episode (background extra). If he lands a punch on Jack in the next episode, do we move him to stunts? Trying to discriminate between these will be like setting up a maternity ward amidst a panicked herd of stampeding cattle. And personally I don't give a mote if "Harris Yulin as Roger Stanton" is listed under "John Doe as Nose-picking alley vagrant". It's not our problem that Yulin chose to go uncredited. I'll cast my vote with Proudhug's suggestion: "Extras, stunts, & uncredited performers" for the sub-heading title. Notice how I added the serial comma! We'll just alphabetize them together and that should be the end of it. 07:31, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::: Ok cool. I was thinking of differentiating with "If an actor is uncredited, and they're in the stunt perfomers category, then they go into the stunts section". Cos often they'll get a stunt team in to play a load of guys, just cos they can handle weapons, or they like working with them etc, and the physical stuff is not seen on screen or not all of them do it. ::: But I don't mind mixing them all up - I think the best thing is to wait until we have more information added to these sections and then see if it is getting too ugly or mixed up. ::: Also, I wasn't trying to get Harris Yulin out from the other guys out of respect for the actor - if that story about his uncredited-ness is true, I think he deserves to be in the lowest place we can get him haha! I just meant the notability of the character.--Acer4666 09:22, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::I can see what you're talking about. Because of the unique format of 24 it is prevalent that a stuntman appears just in one episode and is performing the stunts in the next one. But maybe the heading title can be shorter. Extras and background performers are also actors as they do something in front of the camera. Maybe something like "Uncredited actors and stunt performers"? Tom 16:21, April 5, 2011 (UTC) To reboot this discussion is a good idea since stunt performer discoveries are happening pretty much every day. We need to add to this discussion the issue of categorization. I no longer have any solid idea what to do with the "uncredited" category. Stunt performers and extras are sometimes hard to discern, especially if a performer seems to have accomplished both kinds of roles in his/her tenure on the show. Should we be giving stunt actors the various "Season # actors" categories? Probably not. Actors and stunt people are very different in real life. Of course stunt people are "acting" but it's becoming clearer that they don't belong in the same categories. This is hard to figure out. My new idea is that we only include actor articles like Harris Yulin and Dennis Haysbert inside "Category:Uncredited". Then we also subcategorize the entire "stunt performer" category there as well, skipping the individual articles. I'm really just tossing thoughts out there. Don't have many answers myself... 06:20, May 7, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with not putting "uncredited" as well as "stunt performers", and the subcatgory makes sense. Idon't think we should replace "season X actors" with "season X crew", as I think these stunt people are closer to actors than crew. If you don't want actors and stunt guys together, maybe we could split up stunt performers into the different days as well?--Acer4666 13:09, May 9, 2011 (UTC) :: I don't see why categories is an issue, since, unlike episode article headings, people can be placed into more than one. And these categories don't need to be either mutually exclusive or one a sub-category of another. If someone appears on-screen in an episode, they're an actor, period, regardless if they're an extra or a stuntman. Now if they're working as an unpaid background character, they're also an extra, and if they're performing stunts or credited as such, they're also a stuntman. Am I missing something? How is it more complicated than that? --proudhug 22:01, May 13, 2011 (UTC) ::: You're right about leaving the actor categories for anyone who is on camera. But regarding the second point, about extras and stunts: at this point it seems obvious to me to use a catch-all "Stunts and extras" category. The thought of using the Valsalva maneuver until my brains squirt out of my ears sounds infinitely more constructive than sitting there and determining when a background actor is doing "stunts" or is being an "extra" in a given episode for the sake of choosing 1 of 2 different categories. 04:40, May 16, 2011 (UTC) :::: I don't see the need for an "extras" category, or to put extras into their own special category with stunt performers - I think you'd have a similar maneouvre to distinguish between extras and cast members (some cast members don't have lines, some extras like Kevin Gregg have lines, though ones that don't qualify them for unnamed characters). So my view is - "actors" if they appear in front of the camera, also "uncredited" if they appear in an episode without a credit, also "stunt performers" if they perform a stunt (this is a grey area but I think it's manageable)--Acer4666 11:01, May 16, 2011 (UTC) Here's an idea (not sure if it was already proposed) but maybe we could do something similar to the Star Trek wiki/Memory Alpha, where we just put anyone visible inthe background, performed stunts of any kind or was simply an extra in a "Performer's" section. For instance, on that wiki I'm comparing this to, they had unnamed extras who later went on to do successful leading TV show work but they weren't stuntmen and whether or not you have any lines tends to be irrelevant in the end as it varies. :I think the current system works well - if anyone appears in front of the camera, but is not credited in the cast list at the start or co-star list at the end, they go in the "uncredited" section of the dramatis personae. The fact they're "performers" is implied by them being in the dramatis personae section, and the "uncredited" subsection gives further info about their status in the credits. :Note that for crew cameos, they go in the uncredited section even though they are credited in the episode, because they're being credited for their behind the scenes work rather than their acting work. Their acting work remains uncredited--Acer4666 (talk) 22:21, June 18, 2012 (UTC) Alright, very nice. It just sounded like it was still in dispute. --Gunman6 18:34, June 19, 2012 (UTC)